Skip to main content

A ridiculous stat, courtesy of ESPN

While I love statistics about as much as anyone this side of Nate Silver, there are some stats at which I have to roll my eyes, like this next one.

The Philadelphia Eagles drafted USC quarterback Matt Barkley in the 4th round of the NFL Draft. Barkley will join the likes of Michael Vick, Nick Foles, and Dennis Dixon at the quarterback position. Thanks to "ESPN Stats and Information," the following stat was just released:

"NFL - Vick and Foles Fumble, Barkley Doesn't

Only 2 quarterbacks in the NFL had more fumbles than games played in 2012: Michael Vick (11 fum, 10 games) and Nick Foles (8 fum, 7 games). Matt Barkley had 10 fumbles in 47 games at USC -- that's the fewest fumbles by any FBS QB who played 47+ games from 2009-12."

First off, both Vick and Foles played behind a battered offensive line all year, which didn't help their cause. Also, while Vick has been pretty notorious for fumbling the football throughout his NFL career, Foles was just a rookie last year, so I don't think it's really fair to label Foles as a notorious fumbler after only playing in seven games thus far in his NFL career. In any case, it's completely ridiculous to compare Matt Barkley to Vick and Foles on anything, including this. Foles has only played in seven NFL games. Vick has played in many more than that. In how many NFL games has Matt Barkley played? Zero. How can we really declare that a quarterback who has never played an NFL game will be better at protecting the football than two quarterbacks whom have played in at least seven NFL games a piece, all based on his college statistics? It's simple - we can't. Once Barkley gets some games under his belt, then we can start to compare, but not until that point.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/phi/philadelphia-eagles
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more